Mr. MATTHEWS. - I should be quite prepared to offer a pardon in the earlier Whitechapel murders if the information before me had suggested that such an offer would assist in the detection of the murderer.

In the case of Kelly there were certain circumstances which were wanting in the earlier cases, and which made it more probable that there were other persons who, at any rate, after the crime, had assisted the murderer.

Henry Cox stated "We had many people under observation while the murders were being perpetrated, but it was not until the discovery of the body of Mary Kelly had been made that we seemed to get upon the trail. Certain investigations made by several of our cleverest detectives made it apparent to us that a man living in the East End of London was not unlikely to have been connected with the crimes"
Matthews statement appears to me that whoever was suspected was given an alibi or sent away.

The first part of Mathews statement suggests a lone killer, with no person aiding or abbeting in any way. How many ways could it be presumed a person would aid or abbet,for there were many people who did not come forward in the earlier killings.Pipeman,for instance,was also a loiterer,who must have seen something?

But someone 'living in the East End' is very vague isn't it, and probably most of the men momentarily suspected or questioned or kept under surveillance lived in the East End rather than the West.

Plus, how many policemen involved in the Ripper Hunt, later intimated or hinted 'Yes, a man was suspected, we believed he knew more about the murders than appeared at first,' and 'some of our cleverest detectives were on his trail' etc etc.
Lots of Policemen, from Constables upwards had a theory or were inclined in the years afterwards to look wise and hint they had been on the fiend's trail, but...'

Anything rather than admit (as Acting Commissioner Smith did in his memoirs) that they hadn't a clue then or later who Jack was or where he lived. Failure to catch this serial killer was a hard pill to swallow for many.

THE POLICE AT WORKThe ablest officers were detailed to work up the case, but the fullest investigation of the meagre facts at their disposal failed to lead to the apprehension of the murderer. They however arrived at a conclusion which, if correct, tends to explode the almost universally-held theory that these horrible crimes are all the work of a single miscreant. Carefully calculating the time it would take to cover the ground between Berners (sic) street and Mitre Square and having approximately fixed the hour at which each murder was committed they were forced to the conclusion that if the same man murdered both the women Catharine Beddowes (sic) must have met him by appointment in Mitre Square, as the supposition that he found her in this unfrequented place at the exact moment he desired was clearly untenable. It must be borne in mind that the saloons in London all close promptly at 12.30 A.M. The unhappy women of the class to which Elizabeth Stride and Catharine Beddowes (sic) belonged find the only field for obtaining their wretched means of livelihood, after the drinking places have closed, among the crowds of half-drunken men who throng the leading thoroughfares of the district.
It is obvious, then, that at 1 P.M. the woman Stride (sic) would not have been parading the silent Mitre Square, wholly unfrequented after dark, unless she was waiting there for some one. On the other hand if the murderer of Elizabeth Stride in Berners (sic) street had not been interrupted in his ghastly work, judging by the mutilations practiced in the other cases, he would have spent at least another quarter of an hour at his devilish work. Admitting this, he would have been then too late to keep his appointment with Beddowes (sic), and it is only on the supposition that such an appointment had been made, and that the woman went there to meet the murderer, that the theory of the two murders having been committed by the same hand will hold water.

TWO MURDERERS.The city detectives then early in the first week of October came to a definite conclusion, namely, that the two women met their death at the hands of different men. It was but taking a single step further to conclude that these two men were acting in collusion. The long interval that had elapsed between this and the previous butchery, the fact that the women belonged to the same class and the coincidence that the killing was done within the same thirty-five minutes all pointed to the same conclusion - that the murders had been deliberately planned, probably to be consummated at the same moment, for if even a couple of hours had elapsed between the two crimes the neighborhood would on the discovery of the first, have become so "hot" that the perpetrator of the second outrage would have found the matter of his escape rendered doubly difficult.
The two brainy men who thus theorized, although they firmly believed they had at last opened the case, were still at a loss in what direction to look for the authors of the fearful crimes. With the utmost patience they sought out the degraded companions of the dead women, and bit by bit they learned all that probably ever will be known of their habits, tastes and mode of life.

Henry Cox stated "We had many people under observation while the murders were being perpetrated, but it was not until the discovery of the body of Mary Kelly had been made that we seemed to get upon the trail. Certain investigations made by several of our cleverest detectives made it apparent to us that a man living in the East End of London was not unlikely to have been connected with the crimes"
Matthews statement appears to me that whoever was suspected was given an alibi or sent away.

Pat...........

Hi Pat

I don't think he could have been sent away at the stage of the question in the house.

Given Cox's statement and the suggestion he was watched for sometime, the time frame does not seem right.

However it is very possible that the lead they had (mentioned by Cox) could well be linked to the statement of Matthews. it may well be some unreported sighting.

Unlike the hypothesis I suggested to Pierre, this would not be a high level cover up, but silent surveillance, so has not to tip off the family/friends and thus the suspect himself.

I believe Michael was alluding to the robbery of the post office in Aldgate, which occurred at some time over the weekend of the double event, and linking it to the death of Eddowes (who may have used the alias Mary Ann Kelly) and Mary Jane Kelly by speculating that the police may have been looking for (and/or found) bank notes in the ashes of MJK's fireplace.

There need be no certain knowledge of such, just an assumption by the police (an educated guess if you like) that the killer may have been in a far worse state, of shall we say, contamination, and would probably have required help to clean up, and this is passed up the chain to reach Matthew eventually.

So firstly, no knowledge, but an assumption by the police. Well, one could ask why they would make such an assumption in this case but not in the others, since that what was Matthews implied (if this hypothesis would be right). This also implies that the police, with such an assumption, must have seen the killer as a person with little integrity (letting someone else know he was a killer and helping him), a person who can not cope himself (being in need of help) and a person who was not one criminal anymore but at least two, or more. The question here is (more questions!) - Why would the police have made such an assumption?

Quote:

The obvious reasoning for the exclusion being that if you helped him in that state, you must have known, and should have come forward.

OK. And from what we know about the murder of Mary Jane Kelly - Who could have helped the killer? Might we hypothesize that one or more persons, from all the people we think we know something about, helped him?

Quote:

Pierre for the purpose of the next two hypothesis I will assume for the moment your theory is correct, even if we do not have a name, that is they were of high status. my reasoning for this is that if the killer is not of this status/class these options are highly unlikely to be required.

Do you mean that the circumstances mentioned by Matthews could indicate that there was a killer from the privileged classes and someone who the police could not or would not put to trial? I am not sure if I am understanding you here.

But if those were the circumstances, why would Matthews have mentioned them? Why did he not keep quiet? And why would the police even notify him? It makes no sense.

Quote:

Depends who was seen? and when? and by whom?
if seen by Police, simple order is given- keep silent; if a member of public, may need to coerce them. Maybe a false story was produced on order, with grave consequences if not followed.

OK, but for such a story to be spoken of in the parliament? Your are making some suggestions here - wouldn´t people in 1888 have been able to make the same suggestions? Or did Matthews think that no one would understand? Maybe he did not even understand it himself, if the case were that:

Quote:

Details would be passed on by very senior officer/officers at Scotland yard, probably verbally.

- Would Matthews really stand in the parliament and indicate the above suggestion?

Quote:

The point to note is that no details are given in Westminster, just broad comments.

Yes, I agree. And that is a problem, since we may overinterpret the statement of Matthews! And on the other hand, we may underinterpret it! This is always a problem with such broad comments.

Quote:

Therefore only the Minister and the PM need know the truth! The members question could be a planted question, very common.
The reason would be to send a message to someone, along the lines of "we know, Stop!"

I see! So you mean that they actually thought that the killer would stop if they made him understand that they knew who he was! Well, that is a very generous interpretation. Why would they not just warn him personally and in private? That would have been easy for them.

Another problem: If Matthews is right - and without any hypothesis about him knowing who the killer was now - what was it that someone could have "helped" the killer with?

We could of course assume that he was soaked in blood and needed help to wash up or change clothes (an assumption of the type of killer described above) - but if we would make a list of hypotheses, what could the help have been, and are there any indications in the sources for such a help?

Quote:

Much the same as above, depends who may have seen someone, and just how positive that id was?
It may have been "he looked like so and so" but of course if alibi supplied by someone of standing, may have been no real evidence.

story kept from press as above.

Such info would come from senior officers on a need to know basis. Only Matthews and a select other few may have known- orders, silence is required.

we would obviously be looking at a cover up if either of the latter two options were the case.

At present I see nothing to support any of the hypotheses.

Without supporting data I would go for the first choice because it does not require more than guess work on the part of the authorities. It is a plausible explanation.

however it is not a perfect answer.

Of course the point made by others about it relating to someone seen loitering may be even more valid, given we know that such was reported.

Henry Cox stated "We had many people under observation while the murders were being perpetrated, but it was not until the discovery of the body of Mary Kelly had been made that we seemed to get upon the trail. Certain investigations made by several of our cleverest detectives made it apparent to us that a man living in the East End of London was not unlikely to have been connected with the crimes"
Matthews statement appears to me that whoever was suspected was given an alibi or sent away.

Pat...........

Hi,

Thanks for the post. Do you happen to have a reference to a source as well?